Serious question for Clark supporters

I've asked Clark supporters why they think Clark can beat Bush, they always give me the same answer:

"Because a Clark candidacy will take the National Security issue off the table."

But no one has been able to coherently tell me HOW a Clark candicacy takes National Security off the table. Especially when the campaign seems hell bent on making that the ONLY issue. (Yes, yes, I know he has positions on everything, but every time I've seen him, he's gone to, "I should be the nominee because I'm the ONLY one of the nine candidates that can stand toe to toe against George Bush on national security.")

Especially considering that Bush is going to be able to outspend him by a ratio of 3-1, what is going to stop BushRove from tearing him apart AFTER Clark hit's his 45 million cap, which will probably translate into three to four months of Clark bashing all day and night. You guys do understand that he can't do ANY spending after the 45 mil? That means no commercials, no plane tickets, no hotel rooms, no speaking engagements, no anything for three months.

Another common misconception around here. The spending limits he has opted in for are for the primary.

My other thoughts:
Clark leaves a pretty tough target for smear tactics. He is a successful 4 star General without a voting record. That is a plus!

Clark speaks very well on all subjects. Recently in national coverage all you hear about is national security, but I have been watching him since July. There is plenty more in that man's brain and he is a good communicator. Have you watched any of the town hall events on cspan? Or Road to the Whitehouse coverage?


Clark has written 2 books on national security. He can do a smackdown on Bush Cheney and just about anyone else on the subject. Clark was one of the top minds in the military the last decade.

his books:
Waging Modern War - focus is on Kosovo campaign, NATO, Multilateral issues
Winning Modern Wars - This one was written this year and is more focused on todays issues including Iraq and Terrorism.

It doesn't start until after the convention. The period between March and July is when Dem candidates traditionally run out of funds. It happened to Gore with the biggest Dem warchest up to that point, matched against less than half of what Bush will have this time around.

try to make it out to be. There will be big money going against bush from more than just the candidate (PAC money). Secondly a well run campaign will not just run out of money, they will make the best use of it. Clark had spent very little of his money relative to other campaigns last I saw. Thirdly, while television ads can be effective, in my opinion people make up their minds based on other candidate appearances and interviews and news reporting in a Presidential election. If there are smear ads, there has to be something to smear. It is my contention that there will not be much to go after Clark on in smear ads. What there is will run its course rather quickly.

at West Point.

but now that I think of it...calling economics an art makes sense since its all about interpreting data to prove your point. No matter what the data :)

Of course economists are hardly objective on the matter. But the collection of field data, the analysis of of evidence, the intellectual rigors of challenging theories in professional journals, and the nomenclature of the discipline of economics shows that it is a science in the academic sense. It's a rough, "messy" science because field conditions vary so much from experiments conducted under laboratory conditions. But it is still a science and adheres to all the intellectual rigors of a science.

Perhaps you've missed most of Clark's recent appearances.

For instance, today he was on CSPAN in NH and there was only maybe 2 questions concering military.

and says military action is a last course. The fact that Europe loves and respects him and that he managed to bring together numerous countries to fight in Kosovo.

ESPECIALLY when discussing issues of foriegn policy.

It doesn't take it off the table, it makes the GOP WANT to take it off the table because they know Bush can't compete with a guy who faught a war and saved a people without losing a single American soldier, and has given his life to serving the country.

And I certainly am not saying that Clark's only reason for being nominated is national security, although he probably could perform with more efficiency as commander in chief better than any candidate other than perhaps Kerry, who I think could do it just as well.

A Clark ticket, particularly a Clark-Graham ticket, is a perfect storm for GOP defeat. A Dean-anybody ticket on the other hand is a perfect storm for democratic defeat

he's the first person in my adult lifetime (I'm 42) for whom both I and my parents would vote.

He's very attractive to middle-of-the-road voters because of his appearance, experience and intelligence.

People who are liberal on social issues and strong on defense will like him. PLUS he'll be the one Democrat who can actually cut the Pentagon budget without being accused of hating the military.

He's brilliant, liberal, accomplished and presidential. As I said above, my Republican parents would vote for him. They would not vote for any other Democrat.

Just for starters, a Clark candicacy takes National Security off the table because:
1) Only Clark and Kerry have military experience. If they pull any shit on Clark there's the little matter of Bush avoiding the draft and then being a deserter. They can't touch clark on National Security. He's been there and been successful. Bush hasn't been there and his chickenhawk cowboy routine is blowing up in his face.
2) Clark has made it clear that military action is sometimes necessary but only as a last resort. He has stated clearly that Iraq was a huge, costly, bloody blunder with no end plan. This is the opposite of Bush. Most Americans don't want Bush's endless wars. They want to feel safe and they want diplomacy. They'll get that with Clark.

Clark can continue to collect money for the general election. He just can't spend it until September 2 when the "Invisible Airman" gets anointed as the GOP candidate. That date is 60 days before the general election.

If Clark gets the nomination the Democrats can still raise and spend up to the total of 45 million dollars the campaign during the primary season. That means money will be available to spend during the period between the Democratic convention and the Republican.

During that same period BushCo will be getting hammered on a regular basis on everything from Iraq to the deficit to the Medicare fraud to abuse of veterans to whatever else comes up. MoveOn, for one, and any number of other unaffiliated groups will be keeping up the pressure at an unremitting pace (have you seen some of their 30 second ads?) as will any number of other anti-BushCo groups.

The "Invisible Airman" of course can spend all sorts of money attacking Clark BUT how does he counter the "educational public service ads" that tear at his foriegn and domestic failures over the course of his first term.

Then, on September 3, the Democratic campaign will be able to spend all the money they raised for the General Election over the course of eight weeks and present Clark as the answer to all of the problems the other groups have been hitting the GOP with.

So, unless I'm totally out of line as to how this system works, and if I am please correct me, staying in the FEC this time would not actually work to Clark's disadvantage now that these other groups are available to carry the battle to the White House.

Comments?

I wrote this a while ago:
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/12/19/163542/91